i guess a Zeiss, but which one?
did anybody compare the 4 zeiss 50ies (2x C/Y, N, ZE)?

Gruss
reinhard

jcolwellRegistered: Feb 10, 2005Total Posts: 23009Country: Canada

In my experience, it's the C/Y Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 at f/4 to f/8. The EF 85/1.2L II is probably just as good in this department, but it's a more specialized lens. IMO, 3D pop and separation from the background are two different things.

I had a Carl Zeiss Jena(purchased from Paul) that had some surprising 3D to it when you nailed the focus.The shot below is @f2.8 on my 5D.I really liked the lens but my left elbow has never been the same after carrying it around NYC for several days(the lens is very heavy)
-Jim

I'm reading the original post as needing information comparing the 50mm C/Y, "N", and Z**

If so -
reinhard, in the beginning pages of the "Contax N Image Thread" there was a lengthy discussion and images reviewing the 50's - starting about middle of page two and going on....for a while. Hope that helps.

38 pages of 3D discussion from Jan 2009 - Oct 2010 (almost 2 years). One of the most prolific threads on the subject in recent past. Has some missing pics along the way by now, but there's still plenty of examples to see.

I carry the C/Y 50/1.7 as my chosen "3D" 50, but typically grab my 35-70/3.4 when I'm looking to make some "3D-ishness" in that appx. FL. I also have a C/Y 50/1.4, but haven't done much with it ... likely to sell. The 50/2 Macro holds its own pretty well, but you're starting to split hairs between the 1.7 vs. the 2.0 Macro on the 3D-O-Meter.

AtaboyRegistered: Sep 17, 2004Total Posts: 628Country: United States

Contax or Rollei Zeiss, especially 35/1.4. But many others are not too far behind.

It has such poor edge resolution wide open that a subject in the central area, which is quite sharp, stands out like dogs balls!

JJ

UlffRegistered: Jun 13, 2003Total Posts: 958Country: Germany

So far for me the Zeiss 35 2.0 ZE (beginning wide open), C/Y 35-70 3.4 (at f5.6) and the Zeiss C/Y 85 1.4 (stopped down) delivered the most 3D-impression (in this order). The Zeiss 21 2.8 and 28 2.8 (in the center) are also very good. The aforementioned Contax 100 2.0 did not impress me that much in this regard.

MaktenRegistered: Jul 14, 2008Total Posts: 4056Country: Sweden

For the sort of 3D that does not involve short DOF, the Z* 35/2 is the one...

I went to a little exhibition of Michal Chelbin's work and was really blown away by it. Im not sure if it was the lens, or the printing. Im not very experienced with looking at pro prints, but some of her work just had that look.

to me what I think matters most is whatever it is that people call "microcontrast", which is something I am not well read on. Ive been blown away by pictures made with the 65mm mamiya for the 7, but it doesnt have that same sort of look. the same is true of the 58mm f1.2 rokkor, 90/2 zuiko, 90 cron, 50 cron, 50mm f1.4 SMC, etc. they all draw in a way that's out of this world but every one to me is different then what I see from the zeiss lenses.

BifurcatorRegistered: Oct 22, 2008Total Posts: 9300Country: Japan

The FD 24/2.0 has nice pop. So does the Yashica ML 24/2.8

Many say that the Yashica is better than than the Zeiss is pop and sharpness but I don't have the Zeiss so I dunno for sure.

Sigma seems to be moving up in regards to separation, or even pop. Even the inexpensive 30/1.4 has a fair amount when shot wide open.. not in the class of some of the images posted here, but just saying.. for the money...

@Jim

Wow.

mshiRegistered: Dec 13, 2010Total Posts: 3844Country: United States

Are 3D cameras/lenses supposed to give us more 3D pop?

cavewalkerRegistered: Dec 27, 2008Total Posts: 317Country: Germany

3D means good (micro)contrast sharp and a gaussian blur background.
You can get that all from Distagon 1.4/35 Rokkor 2.8/24 Rokkor 2/28 2,8/200 Zuiko Auto Macro 2/50 and of course the famous 2/90